Saturday, September 3, 2011
On Tuesday August 30, a group of Muslims with the Muslim American Society of New York (MASNY) attended Playland Park in celebration of the end of Ramadan. An altercation broke out after word spread that the Muslim women could not go on certain rides wearing their religious garb, the hijab, the wearing of which would violate the parks no headgear policy for those rides, and the removal of which would violate the wearer’s religious convictions. Cries of Muslim discrimination were issued, tempers ran high, violence ensued, and the police arrived.
Does the park’s headgear ban for some rides constitute religious discrimination and were the rights of the Muslim women violated? Certainly not. The ban is one of safety for all ride-goers and pertains to all headgear wearers. Park employees even undergo training sessions to ensure sensibility to handicapped and religious persons who need to be accommodated in order to enjoy certain rides while maintaining the safety of others. The rule (“Some rides do not allow backpacks, purses or head gear of any kind,”) which is clearly stated on the park’s website, has been in place for the past three years, and is not unique to amusement parks. The rule is reasonable and demonstrates precaution particularly considering that as of 2007 and in less than four years there had been three deaths at Playland.
Some may argue that the park should allow for religious exemptions or allow Muslim women to sign waivers stating that in the incident of an accident resulting from the religious wearing of the hijab, the family would not sue the park. Such exemptions would not be prudent because such exemptions would endanger the lives of others. Certain rights, even religious, stop when the carrying out of those rights present a potential and clear (i.e. one of causality) endangerment to the lives of others.
The Muslims wearing hijabs were not singled out because of their religion but because their religious garb violated park safety standards. Ola Salem was told she could accompany her younger sister on a fast-moving ride permitting she not wear her hijab as a safety precaution. Salem recalls, “they [the park employees] said no because my headgear.” Surly, if Salem had removed her hijab, she could have gone on the ride, yet Salem is convinced that “it’s not my headgear, it’s my religion.” Unfortunately Salem and many of the other Muslim attendees are misguided in their assessment of the situation. The group was allowed to enter the park, they were allowed to go on rides allowing headgear, and they were allowed to go on rides with headgear restrictions if they removed their hijabs. The headgear restriction does not only apply to those who are Muslim, but to secular headgear wearers and even to other religious headgear wearers. A security officer related a past experience when Jewish boys were asked to remove their yarmulkes before riding a park coaster. The boys decided to pocket their yarmulkes and one of them removed his glasses. They recognized a conflict between their religious beliefs and public safety restrictions and decided that taking off their yarmulkes would be worth the thrill of the coaster. Miraculously no one cried religious discrimination.
Rules are rules. There are civil rules and there are religious rules. When they conflict, the believer has to make a decision. For the Muslim women at Playland, the decision was between forgoing a religious practice and forgoing a ride at an amusement park. They chose the latter while adding a twist of their own.
Furthermore, MASNY, which organized the trip, was aware of the headgear restriction during the trip’s planning stage, according to Playland’s executive office. MASNY, an arm of the Muslim American Society, which was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1992, being a Muslim group, was well aware that many potential trip participants would be wearing hijabs. The Journal News uncovered the email correspondence between Playland event coordinator Adam Harvey and MASNY president Hatem Gawaly. The emails reveal that Harvey responded to Gawaly’s query regarding the headgear restriction’s application to hijabs by stating that the hijab could not be worn on certain rides. Humayun Haq, who saw the trip’s advertising flier before its publication, shared his concern via email to MASNY officials that the flier failed to mention anything regarding handicap accessibility and headgear restrictions – the flier was published without any such mentions. Whether or not MASNY told its participants of the ban or whether they had more sinister plans certainly goes beyond the purpose of this blog assignment. However, it does make one wonder about MASNY’s decision to attend the park and about its improper advertisement.
Discrimination did not take place. The Muslim women were simply told to comply with a long-standing rule. The Muslims were allowed into the park, to go on rides without headgear bans, and to go on rides with the ban permitting they make themselves physically fit to ride for safety reasons extending to the safety of others. Park employees instruct all wearers, both religious (not only Muslims) and secular, to remove headgear. Therefore, I conclude that the notion of religious discrimination as it pertains to Tuesday’s events to be preposterous.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Should prayers be said at memorial services? Do they offer peace of mind or point out religious differences? Although many would believe that a short prayer is necessary at a ceremony, U.S. officials are excluding religious leaders from the biggest remembrance ceremony of the year. Ever since that fatefully tragic September day in 2001, Americans across the country have come together to remember those who perished in the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Centers. As the 10th anniversary approaches, this year will be no different, however many religious figures are trying to make changes to service at ground zero. This year the names of the 2,983 deceased will be read by their families as well as short remarks will be made by the New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and President Barack Obama. Although this same ceremony occurs annually, many Christian leaders are voicing their concern. These clergy members believe that the event organizers have purposefully left out a religious figure to say a few prayers throughout the service. Evelyn Erskine, spokeswoman for the mayor said “It has been widely supported for the past 10 years and rather than have disagreements over which religious leaders participate we would like to keep the focus of our commemoration ceremony on the family members of those who died.” The question now is should there be a religious leader presence? And if so, of what denomination should that figure be associated with? The United States government and the event leaders for the 10th annual remembrance ceremony believe there should be no religious affiliation.
I believe that the purpose of the remembrance ceremony is to reflect on the names of the lives lost on that horrific day. This is not an ordinary memorial service. It reflects on an event that not only killed many people, but also seriously threatened the state of our country. Of the 10 previously held remembrance services, clergy members have never once been present at ground zero. Instead of a prayer, there have been moments of silence for the audience to reflect and if they choose to at that moment, pray. These moments are planned for this year’s ceremony as well. While I recognize that a prayer may seem very important to religious leaders, I think they are losing focus on the real purpose of this ceremony. It is to remember those who died. It is meant to focus on the tragedy that every person across the country felt in their heart the moment they watched what the two planes hit the World Trade Center Towers. Although prayer is often used to help console, in this situation I believe having this event in itself helps to reflect and comfort.
Also, if there were to be a clergy member at the ceremony, who would it be? How would the organizers decide which person reflects a large enough majority to be present? Recently, while on a radio show, Mayor Bloomberg stated “There’s an awful lot of people that would like to participate, but you just can’t do that once you open it up. So the argument here is, it’s elected officials and those who were there at the time and had some influence.” If one Christian leader was selected, Americans of Jewish faith would want their own separate speaker. Then maybe Protestants and Catholics would want their own separate speakers. And if these three different faiths were able to have a speaker it could spark the question of why a Muslim leader was not present. After all, there are many Muslims living in this country and they may want to voice a prayer as well. This could in effect bring about even more controversy. And through all this difference in opinion and addition of speakers the focus of the remembrance ceremony would be lost.
While I respect and recognize the reason for wanting to hold a prayer I believe that it takes away from what is truly important at the ceremony. Also, if these religious leaders feel so strongly about a prayer then they can go to one of the many other commemorative events taking place that day. Ultimately I believe that in theory a prayer is a positive addition to the ceremony, but the process of finding a speaker who everyone can agree on would be impossible and the service already holds moments of silence which fulfill the same purpose that a prayer would.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Click here to read article.
A day at an Amusement Park usually brings fun and joy to people of almost any age, but when a group of Muslim women were asked to remove their hijabs, the situation took an ugly turn. What was originally intended as a friendly reminder of park policy, led to an all out brawl, ending with fifteen arrests and the injury of two park rangers.
On August 31, 2011, Rye Amusement Park was hosting an outing of guests celebrating Eid al-Fitr. The situation turned sour however, when three women were prohibited from entering a ride due to their headscarves. Feeling discriminated against because of their religion a group of on looking Muslims called Zead Ramadan, a spokesman for the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), to mediate the situation. "They're the most obvious Muslims around because they have hijabs on. They felt they were discriminated against," Ramadan stated. Upon the arrival of the police, County Police Captain Gleason was told that the park officials had forewarned the event organizers of the rules against headgear on rides, and stated that those responsible for the event failed to relay the information to the group. Park officials defended themselves stating that before each ride, riders are presented with height requirements as well as a sign reading, "Some rides do not allow backpacks, purses or head gear of any kind".
In my opinion, the park officials did not violate any rights of the Muslims. Furthermore, prohibiting the Muslim women from wearing their religious garments on the ride was certainly not an attack of any nature against their religion. These ride attendants were simply doing their jobs. I believe a physical altercation ensued because the Muslims felt as though they were being discriminated against. The fault in this situation rests in the hands of the Muslim women. The park attendants asked the women to remove their headscarves for safety reasons just as a precaution. When I am asked to remove my sandals on a ride I do not take offense to such requests. Granted, my sandals hold no religious significance to me as I do not believe removing my sandals will sentence me to a life of eternal damnation. However, if they had I would understand as it would pose a potential safety risk to other passengers on the ride or guests in the immediate area. God forbid the passengers were allowed on with their head garments and something had gone wrong, the company, not the individuals, would have been held fully responsible.
I am sure the ride attendants had nothing against the Muslim guests, they were merely following the safety standards of the park. If the Muslim women had taken the time to stop and read the signs posted before each ride, they would have realized that they were not being discriminated against or treated unfairly, but that rather, the rule is a general park policy that applies to everyone. The sign did not read, “No Muslims!”, it very clearly stated “no headgear of any kind”. In this situation, religion is not a valid excuse to jeopardize the safety of ones self or others on the ride. The company is legally bound to follow certain precautions and the Muslim guests should have been more tolerant of such a policy. According to the article, the Muslim guests were also offered a full refund for their inconvenience. I cannot support or even sympathize for the other side under these circumstances, although I understand their frustration. As for the physical violence that pursued, I am unable to take a side pending further evidence.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
In this article
It highlights one of the many aspects of religion that I am very interested in. Although I practice a mainstream religion that many people are aware of (stereotype) and have heard of I always wonder what it looks like from an outside view. It fascinates me to know that there are people they may believe that my religion is crazy, obsolete and or hypocritical, when in fact I see it as the complete opposite. I found this article and thought that it would be a great blog post because so many times the question of motivation arises. In other words why do some people persist on practicing a religion or aspects of that religion that may be harmful to others? Then again I guess what needs to be highlighted is that there is a possibility that the people whom the religion is law may not feel that they are causing any harm in the first place but on the contrary, feel that they are being loyal and good. The article above talks about the Holocaust, an event in history that we are for the most part familiar with and how the excuse “God told me to do it” plays into the whole ordeal. Although the article references Canadian law I felt it still appropriate in order to see the differences between the American culture and that of our neighbors to the north.
The article outlines a number of aspects that are significant to American law as well as Canadian law. One that I have found incredibly appealing since the mentioning of it in class is the use of drugs in religious ceremonies. A case that was decided in the mid to late 1980’s was one of the uses of peyote. Two men that worked (ironically) for a rehab clinic were drug tested and tested positive for peyote. The men that were both members of the Native American church claimed that they used the drug for ceremonial and ritualistic purposes. Although they lost their jobs and their case I was not personally in agreement with the result of the case. Call me Skalia, but I agree that the men should have been fired because when they were employed they agreed to the fact that they would be drug tested and therefore when they used peyote new that were disobeying the rules of their employer. The part that I am not in accordance with is that the state in which they lived in and their employer should never had had the regulation to begin with. Peyote has been used by the Native Americans for a long time and it is a proven fact that it is part of their religious doctrine.
Of course what is a blog post about Religion and the law without the mention of Polygamy and Bigamy? In reference to Polygamy I feel that The Principle was just a way for men to have their cake and eat it too. For one, when a person strongly believes that something is right, just, correct and true they shouldn’t have a reason to hide it much like the Mormons did not do in reference to Polygamy and The Principle when it was first heard of. It was not until years after the founding of the Church of Latter Day Saints that the revelation of The Principle surfaced. Canada took the stance that these actions degrade women and therefore they are not constitutional and prohibited by law. Where it gets messy is whether or not the country can honor the marriages when they took place in another country. I feel if you’re married in Vegas in a little white chapel by Elvis, you should be married only in Vegas.
In the end Canada as you can see has the same if not more problems of Religion and the Law as America. The fact that they are both strong and large nations I feel only makes the problem that much harder and worse. I feel that with seeing a little insight to the ordeal that Canada and the rest of the world for that matter has to endure we see the Religion and the Law is a topic that literally will never be solved or go away. I guess I shouldn’t phrase it as a problem, but it sure is problematic. From “The Principle,” to the new revolution of the “Green” religion, it is good to know that American isn’t the only one with Religion and Law on its agenda.
In an article published this week on ReligionDispatches.org, Mark Bergen discusses a new development of the rapidly spreading Prison Fellowship Ministries program. For those that are unfamiliar, Prison Fellowship Ministries (PFM) states that their mission is “to seek the transformation of prisoners and their reconciliation to God, family, and community through the power and truth of Jesus Christ.” This program was launched by Charles “Chuck” Colson, who was incarcerated for 7 months himself after the notorious Watergate scandal, in 1976. PFM then went inside the prisons to serve as an “alternative” rehabilitation program for prisoners. For further information on the values and history of the PFM please see their website.
This article on RD deals directly with a new PFM program called Out4Life. Out4Life began in
What is of particular interest here is not the fact that PFM wishes to help ex and current criminals change their lives through Jesus Christ, but that it is a government funded program within the prison system. Therefore issue for programs like Out4Life is this: Is it a violation of the Establishment Clause for the government to sponsor and aid a religious, and clearly evangelical Christian, program?
Dr. Winnifred Sullivan published her book Prison Religion last year after being called as an expert witness in the case in
With that in mind, is there a clear violation of the Establishment Clause? Judge Pratt found that in
Monday, April 26, 2010
Should serving pork be a requirement for good foster parenting? As outrageous as this question sounds, apparently a private company called Contemporary Family Services (CFS), which is authorized by the state of Maryland to place foster children, believes serving pork is such a requirement. This question came to light when Ms. Tashima Crudup, a Muslim woman who was once part of the foster care system herself, was denied the opportunity to become a foster parent. CFS denied Ms. Crudup’s application after a home interview during which Ms. Crudup explained that she would not allow pork products in her home. CFS claims that this is the sole reason that Ms. Crudup’s application was denied stating “there could potentially be a discrepancy between her expectations and the needs and personal views of a child.” However, Crudup had assured the CFS representative that she would honor the religious beliefs of any child in her care. She told the representative that she would take the child to services of his or her choice and the child was free to consume pork products in establishments outside the home.
On April 14th Ms. Crudup, with the help of the ACLU of Maryland, filed a complaint with the Baltimore City Community Relations Commission on grounds of illegal religious discrimination. Ajmel Quereshi, attorney with the ACLU maintained, “The law is clear that you cannot deny people the opportunity to care for foster children based solely on their religion, particularly when they have emphasized that they would help children in their care to follow their own religious beliefs.”
I agree with the religious discrimination claim made by Ms. Crudup and the ACLU in this case. I believe that CFS discriminated on religious grounds in denying Ms. Crudup’s application because such a dietary standard would lead to denial of applications by Orthodox Jews who also abstain from consuming pork, Catholics who do not eat meat on Friday, and even vegetarians, but it has not yet been shown that any of these groups are not fit to be foster parents because of their dietary restrictions. Therefore, it seems clear that Ms. Crudup has been singled out due to anti-Muslim prejudice by CFS.
If Contemporary Family Services has illegally discriminated against Ms. Crudup on a religious basis, one must wonder for how long the company has discriminated against Muslims and to whom else has this happened. There are thousands of kids across the United States that are in need of a family to care for them and I highly doubt that they are concerned whether pork is allowed on their dinner table or not.
Furthermore, although dietary restrictions as the basis for foster parent approval may appear secular on the surface, this rule clearly has not been secular in practice. If CFS had denied other parents such as Jews, Catholics, vegetarians, and vegans based on their dietary requirements, then I think this rule would be constitutional (although in my opinion unreasonable). However, by singling Ms. Crudup as a Muslim out from the other individuals with dietary restrictions, I think there is certainly a basis for an illegal religious discrimination claim and CFS should be held responsible.
Despite Contemporary Family Services’ opinion, given the option between pork products and foster parents, I would choose the latter. Wouldn’t you?
Sunday, April 25, 2010
The college experience for many people is one of vast networking that many students have to go through if they want to make it ahead after graduation. And with networking we see these students join various clubs, be it physical (martial arts), mental (student United Nations). However, when it comes to joining a spiritual club, the student tries to find a sense of religious ideology with their fellow clubbers. However, one religious club at the Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, a branch of the University of California, in particular has one rule that must be followed pertaining to homosexuals and their exclusion. And in this article we will look at one club who has overstepped their boundaries on who to let in and the trial that ensued.
The case titled, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez deals with the club excluding homosexuals because it clashes with their religious beliefs. The main issue that this case will determine is whether religious-based and other private organizations that want federal funding have the right to discriminate against people who do not hold their core beliefs. The Christian Legal Society requires members to sign a proclamation of their faith and that they do not participate in sexual immorality that clashes with Christian beliefs thus the reason for no homosexuals. The group even wants the University of California to fund their club, but the university not only denied them but shut them down on the basis of discrimination. At first the case was thrown out by federal judges saying how the club violated the first amendment granting free speech and free exercise which is upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2004. However, this case has made it all the way to the Supreme Court in which the justices are split on the issue at hand the official rule will happen this summer.
The big question that comes into play is the actions of the Christian Legal Society. One can understand that the group holds the Christian beliefs as their core value, but to deny someone entry on the basis of their sexuality is just wrong. There are clubs that do allow others in even if their ideals clash such as Democratic students entering into Republican clubs such as Justice Scalia puts it, so what is to stop them from allowing homosexuals into their club.
In my opinion, I believe that the homosexuals should be allowed into the Christian Legal Society. The club could make a rule in which the member, be it homosexual or not, must pass a biblical quiz in order to join them or something. However, by blacklisting these future candidates the Christian Legal Society is just limiting themselves and their image within the University.
